Read today that Joe the Plumber had hired a public relations agency to assist him in getting a record deal? Anyone out there join me in wondering how his 15 seconds of fame translates to people wanting to buy records?

Separately, there’s no doubt the economy is very tough, and while President Bush, both of the Presidential candidates and the brightest financial minds in the world are focused on trying to solve the world’s financial crisis, I believe entrepreneurs and small business owners shouldn’t get sidetracked by that. 

What I have promised to myself, and my employees is: I will work harder than ever before and be more focused to client needs than ever before.  The pledge I believe business owners can make is to simply be hurt a little less than their competitors. 

It’s refusing to lose.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

I have recently been reading The Week, a publication put out by Felix Dennis of Dennis Publishing (who also publishes Maxim).  The magazine’s simple motto is: “All you need to know about everything that matters.”

The weekly mag provides a review/roundup of the top stories from magazines and newspapers all over the world. That’s a great summary of the news and helps one to better understand how the media is covering stories, which allows PR folks like me to come up with better pitches – I came up with a bunch while reading it.

You can’t read enough if you work in PR, or are an entrepreneur. 

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

I spent the weekend reading “Off the Record: The Press, the Government, and the War over Anonymous Sources,” by Norman Pearlstine, who spent years in the media serving as executive editor of The Wall Street Journal and editor-in-chief of Time Magazine.  Pearlstine writes about his experiences at Time battling the White House and court systems; he also discusses the press and its limits.  The book is very interesting reading for anyone involved with the media, PR, or public affairs. 

As I have stated before, journalists have the ability to make and break people, products, and businesses and often feel “above the law.”  This book details many of the conflicts inherent in high-level journalism, most notably regarding the law and protecting anonymous sources.  I really enjoyed it.

In the business of public relations, and certainly in politics, there is often a need to feed information to a reporter off the record.  This process requires some level of trust between reporters and their sources.  Reporters rely on the vital information sources provide for many high profile stories and investigative pieces, whether in sports, entertainment, politics, public affairs or law. 

Day to day, sources and journalists work hand in hand to create stories.  It’s simply the way the industry functions.   This book examines and questions the limits and parameters of these relationships and their boundaries.

Ronn Torossian
5WPR

This weekend while running in the gym, I caught CNN’s Reliable Sources and absolutely loved it.  I’m recommending it to all PR people.  Until this weekend, I had only watched it sparingly, but now I’ve TIVO’ed it and don’t plan on missing it again.  At Public Relations agencies, we spend our days figuring out how to penetrate the media with stories and angles that will interest them.   This show, which CNN describes as “television’s only regular program to examine how journalists do their jobs and how the media affect the stories they cover,” provides insight into the psyche of the media.  An absolute necessity for PR pros.

If more publicists watched this program, we might not have such a tough time hiring senior people.  At most competing PR firms, senior people never pick up the phones to call the media.  Instead, they spend their days “counseling” clients.  One can’t properly counsel clients on securing media if the counselors themselves don’t ever pitch media.

I highly recommend Reliable Sources moving forth.  (The same goes for Mad Men, which everyone in the PR, marketing and advertising industry seems to be talking about, but which I have only seen a few times.  I now have it Tivo’ed as well.)

Ronn Torossian

5W PR

Every day this week, I walked one block south of our offices to the tents at Bryant Park. Out on the street in front of the Fashion Week tents, lights were flashing and people were gawking. But while some were there for the fashion, I was there to people watch. As a marketer, I’m always inspired by the creative street theater and guerrilla marketing events saturating the Bryant Park sidewalk during Fashion Week. People watching allows me to see trends and make observations first hand. Reading a media report is a far cry from the palpable excitement on the street.

This morning, for instance, I encountered a few cross dressers promoting the Janice Dickinson show swarmed by photographers and a crowd of people. It’s a great example of a low cost, high impact way to capture influencers.

While I won’t reveal here the many successful stunts 5WPR executed for Fashion Week, I can say that street theater and guerrilla marketing are amazing ways for brands to capture mind share and media share at huge events, without incurring huge costs.

If you’re open to big ideas and have a entrepreneurial mindset, you can always find a way to incorporate your brand into the mecca of huge events, without having to pay the multimillion dollar price tag. Whether Fashion Week, The Superbowl or Sundance, 5W PR always finds creative ideas and angles to enter the media landscape, permeate the discussion and penetrate the tastemakers who attend. Brands need to seek creative, winning concepts… and winning sometimes means being outside rather than inside the box. Those who take the biggest risks with their brand often reap the biggest rewards. And by far the most attention.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

There has been a lot of buzz today about the Us Weekly covers below vis a vis bias in the media.  Although idealists suggest otherwise, I find the concept of an unbiased media simply impossible.  First, as human beings, we have inherent biases that can’t be discarded on a whim.  Whether political, cultural or simply a level of taste, each of us holds certain ideas closer than others.  Secondly, bias creates tension and drama, which sells more magazines, attracts more viewers, and keeps online visitors coming back for more.  Especially in an age when a new, unbridled media is quickly usurping the old, the rules of objectivity will continue to be a moving target.

Regardless of one’s political stance, bias in the media is a discussion worth consideration by PR professionals, and certainly a topic this PR blog will continue to blog on.  As a student of journalism, I suggest reading Bias by Bernard Goldberg – Certainly will make you think.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

At the epicenter of today’s branded consumer entertainment culture are consumer/corporate brands hiring (partnering with?) celebrities to represent their products. Whenever a brand hires a celebrity, instant brand associations abound, with tremendous potential upsides and downsides. In my career, I have encountered extremes in this endeavor among CEOs and CMOs of clients. I can remember a major consumer CEO saying, “We will never ever hire a celebrity. Ever. I have worked too hard to allow some DWI-prone star or idiot drug-addict celebrity to affect my business,” and regardless of countless opportunities that CEO had, he always said no. He was too concerned about the potential risks. On the flipside, we at 5W have worked with many brands that did hire celebrities for brand campaigns — large and small — and some of those have been extremely successful.

I write this in reference to David Duchovny being instantly fired as the face and celebrity endorser of shoe company Johnston & Murphy due to his “sex addiction.” Duchovny, who plays a sex-obsessed character on TV apparently has the same issues in his personal life. Interestingly, just last month the brand issued a statement saying: “David embodies success and confidence, along with a great sense of style, communicating the ideal image for the Johnston & Murphy brand.”

Anytime I read about issues like this, I wonder if these brands really did the proper vetting vis a vis celebrities. Did they do more than speak to the agent/manager of this celeb? Did they have essential relationships that enabled them to talk to nightclub owners, or find his wife’s best friend? Hire private detectives? Really ask around in the circle of people who knew the truth? These sorts of things (and others) are all necessities for any brand truly willing to “win” at celebrity endorsements/PR.

Steve Stoute, a master at marrying brands to celebs, is rightly quoted in this week’s Adweek discussing how celebrity sponsorship has forever changed. The most successful relationships, he says, come from brands and artists viewing themselves as true business partners.  Proper vetting and planning is required for celebrity endorsers. It’s much more than just taking someone’s picture holding your shoe in the year 2008 and beyond.

Ronn Torossian
5W PR

As the owner of a public relations agency, and someone who has worked with governments, lobbyists and journalists, I analyzed The Sunday Times of London expose on lobbyist Stephen Payne (Stephen Payne: a hotshot lobbyist who can get you into White House, July 13, 2008[i]).

Beginning with the basics; bribery is unacceptable, and for a democracy or civilized government it is wholly abhorrent. If that is what happened, it is illegal and reprehensible. That said, I am sure that it will be fully investigated, and I am also very confident that the investigation will lead to little or nothing.

Yet, lobbyists and PR firms are hired to represent and to advocate on their clients’ behalf. It doesn’t suggest that they agree with the causes; its business, not academics. Public relations specialists and lobbyists use their skill and resources to change minds, address laws and affect lives. The job of a lobbyist or PR pro, once they agree to accept a client, is to use every means within law and reason to arrange access, introduce and sell a client’s viewpoint or objective. That’s a fact; the concept that Paine was going to be paid to attempt to offer access and persuade policy is his business, and it is the sole purpose of the business of lobbying.

The author included, albeit buried towards the very end of the article, “that the payment to the Bush library was not a ‘quid pro quo’ and that his company had performed many ‘good things’ for the world that were ‘ethical and always above board… He said that making a payment to the library would have had no impact without the client’s cause having merit…”

So, what he said was, and as the video included represents: If you make a donation, serious people are more likely to listen to you over the crowd of others waiting.

How many political requests does any government receive? Cold calls? Urgent matters? The way of the world, like it or not, is about access and money. In this real world, those who pay are often taken more seriously. There is, of course, outrage that money vastly improves ones ability to gain access. Our system of democracy encourages this. Elections bring the need for campaigns; campaigns bring the need for campaign donations; donations grab the attention of the individual running for office.

Whether is should be that way is a great philosophical question that is often debated and even fought over. Still, no one has yet to develop a better system of government than what we know as our popular election system.

Access and name dropping are key parts of business for lobbyists, PR firms and those in political life. It is often how one gets in the door for new business; most of which may never need the access, save the fact that the client knows you have it. We see this on all levels of business in almost every business. Friends introduce one another for leads; others use a golf course, country club or fraternity to impress and flaunt. Isn’t that offering access? It is, and government access is no different. Payne had access, he dropped names; no scandal!

Also, many in PR are often too quiet about actions by an overzealous media attempting to make headlines and sell ink. Media oftentimes can endanger a client’s business interests to the point of no return. Some reporters, believing they are doing a public service, or thinking a “hard hitting” exposé will get them broadly noticed have zero boundaries at all; pure ruthlessness, often believing they can dictate morality and attack someone, while few call into question the tactics of the reporter.

The media is supposed to be impartial players in the news reporting process. Reporters should give the public objective facts and not impose his or her opinion. Unless the role of the media, is as Howard Kurtz so aptly states regarding a similar incident involving Ken Silverstein to “lie, deceive and fabricate to get the story?”[ii]

Certain elements of the media seem to have no restrictions when it comes to destroying people, businesses and those they deem not to agree with. To me, it comes as little surprise that Payne is someone supposedly close to the Republicans in an election year. Most of American media today leans left and anything on the right is fodder for ideologues with a bully pulpit… that pulpit being a keyboard and the Internet.

Clients pay for positive outcomes, but also for protection from potential negatives. One cannot approach media feebly or even be lulled into thinking they are friends looking to serve the cause of justice. Journalists often claim a mantle of self-righteousness, self appointed and self governed; it neither makes them right nor gives them the right. The public can decide right from wrong based on objectivity.

I recall my recent experience when a Journalist at top tier investigative TV news program called me. The reporter relentlessly pursued an interview with my client, and we were not accepting any. I was running out of ways of saying “no” kindly. He called my client’s office when he could not get me to move. He insisted on speaking with my client, yet I told him again politely “He’s not interested.” Making a long story short; he cursed, threatened, and bad-mouthed me, then he called for weeks on end. He could not get his way “” and was shocked.

Lobbyists, lobbying firms, PR agencies and the like exist to help influence public opinion. As long as the world has existed there have been people serving in those roles. Even God had Moses use his access to his “brother” Pharaoh to lobby the cause of the Hebrews. While of course Presidential libraries must not be built on bribes; being paid to perform a service and providing access are not bribes.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR

Working in public relations and, in particular, crisis management, there is a tremendous balancing act between projecting clients’ images and agendas and, at the same time, protecting them – essentially keeping the press at bay.   Often, as it is, the purpose of PR and wrangling with the media is to encourage positive coverage for whomever or whatever you represent.  If the story is not going to be positive, then it is best just not to do it.  The job of a good PR person is to protect his clients and make them look their best in the media and in public.

It is for this reason that I found myself agreeing with the recent Obama campaign’s decision to ban a reporter deemed to be from a publication believed to be less than objective for Obama from his press plane on this week’s International “foreign policy” trip.  Let’s face it, there’s no shortage of reporters wanting to travel with the presidential candidate – as the campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane, of which they were able to grant only 40 – so why grant space to a publication who has previously hurt the campaign, and who may skew coverage in place of someone less inclined to do so?  It is hard to imagine the New York Yankees allowing a Boston-minded sports reporter unfettered locker room access.

Candidates and clients as well, offer access to media with the hope, and perhaps even the expectation that media will present a positive narrative. Yet, anyone worth his salt in public relations knows all to well that media access by its very nature presents the possibility of either a good or a bad story.  So, if there is choice, why ante-up with media deemed to be biased against your position when there are so many other journalists one can gamble on to better the odds?

Equally as reporters at the top tier publications want exclusive information, unique off the record comments and the like, so too must there be a very fair and real expectation for them that if they present a negative or seemingly prejudicial story then the possibility of being excluded is very real – especially when there is a major issue at stake, like a presidential election, and especially where the candidate has the luxury of choosing any media he prefers.  Indeed, he cannot avoid bad coverage from someone inclined to do so, but he does not need to offer a seat on his plane.

The banned reporter in question, Ryan Lizza of New Yorker Magazine learned that Obama had earned a reputation of “‘you’re not going to punk me, you’re not going to roll me over, you’re not going to jam me.’”[i][i]  This is not an issue of Freedom of the Press; Lizza can write what he wants, but Obama is not obligated to open his arms in welcome.  Outrage by media over such policies is also hypocritical, as stated in The Huffington Post, “Wow. So it’s gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate.”   No, it is not chilling – it is valid.  As journalists are arbiters of fate, they should expect that those on the receiving end of their opinions or ideals be cautious.

I find myself agreeing with this statement from Anita Dunn, an Obama advisor, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job it if weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give,” Ms. Dunn said. “We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.”[ii][ii] 

I understand those of us in the public relations business who feels that media must not be allowed to simply run rampant over clients - especially those who garner tremendous media attention.  It does not mean that we should not cooperate with media – We do, but while we would love totally positive coverage, we generally seek what we can expect to be fair and objective.

[i][i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/obamas-revenge-emnew-york_n_113969.html

[ii][ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Ronn Torossian
5WPR

I always tell clients involved in court cases that there are two courts – the court of law and the court of public opinion.  With the changing nature of media today, a forum doesn’t exist where the media doesn’t play a major part.

This past week provided ample opportunity to study this theory in action, with high-profile celebrity affairs and divorces receiving almost continuous attention.  NYC coverage of Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook’s divorce proceedings was truly great media. 

One colorful quote I saw from Brinkley included that she needed to settle on that particular day because she had run out of outfits to wear.  Brinkley was determined to use the court of public opinion to her own advantage, countering Cook’s claim for custody with a terse, but loaded, strategy: “Well, I’m going to let the world know what you’re all about,” according to Stephen Steinberg in the New York Times.  And she wasn’t lying, as you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who wasn’t privy to Cook’s now-public indiscretions.

There are plenty of PR agencies and firms hired both openly and quietly to influence judges and juries of all sorts.  And with the recent success rate, I suspect that it won’t end anytime soon.

Ronn Torossian

5WPR